Military discounts can be decent, but honestly, bundling and loyalty perks often stack up better in my experience. I've seen military clients save a bit upfront, but after a couple years, sticking with the same company or combining policies usually makes a bigger dent. And yeah, trackers...I tried one briefly out of curiosity, but after it dinged me for a late-night taco run, I decided my privacy (and snacking habits) were worth more than a few bucks off.
Yeah, I get what you're saying about bundling usually working out better in the long run. Military discounts seem nice upfront, but do they really keep pace with loyalty perks over time? I've always wondered if insurers assume military folks move around more, making long-term bundling less appealing. Also, trackers are a no-go for me—can you imagine how they'd react to my weekend drives in the old Mustang? Privacy aside, there's just something unsettling about your insurer judging your driving habits...
I've wondered about that too, actually. Military discounts can be great upfront, but insurers probably do factor in frequent relocations—makes sense they'd be hesitant to offer the same long-term perks. And I'm totally with you on the trackers...my '68 Camaro doesn't exactly scream "responsible driver" on Sunday afternoons. Last thing I need is my insurance company raising an eyebrow every time I decide to stretch her legs a bit. Privacy aside, some things are better left unknown, right?
"Privacy aside, some things are better left unknown, right?"
Yeah, I get the hesitation about trackers—though personally, I've found them pretty useful. I drive a pretty boring sedan (no classic Camaro envy here, haha), and the tracker actually helped me pinpoint some habits I didn't even realize were risky. But I totally see your point about privacy and insurers possibly misinterpreting occasional spirited driving.
On the military discount thing though, I'm curious if insurers factor in deployment periods too. Like, if you're overseas for months at a time and your car's just sitting in storage, shouldn't that lower your risk profile significantly? Or do they assume the opposite—that the vehicle might degrade or have maintenance issues from sitting idle too long? Seems like there could be some hidden variables at play here that aren't immediately obvious.
Has anyone here had experience with how insurers handle extended deployments or long-term storage situations?
I dealt with this exact thing a couple years back when I was deployed overseas for about 10 months. Initially, my insurer didn't proactively offer any reduced rates for storage, but after I called and explained my situation, they did provide a discounted "storage-only" coverage option. Here's what I noticed from my experience:
- They required proof the car was securely stored (mine was in a locked garage at my brother's place).
- Coverage was limited—basically just theft, vandalism, or fire. No collision or liability since it wasn't being driven.
- When I came back, I had to notify them immediately before driving again, and they reinstated full coverage right away.
"shouldn't that lower your risk profile significantly?"
You'd think so, but insurers seem more concerned about potential theft or damage from lack of use (tires going flat, battery issues, etc.). My advice—always ask directly and clarify exactly what's covered. Better safe than sorry, especially after leaving your car idle for months...
